[Mark Bahner]

Of course its constitutional. If it weren't, it would have been overturned long ago.

Bwaahahahahaha! That's good! You're just like the good folks in Animal Farm who read the new commandments: "Four legs good, two legs better."

Instead of (foolishly) trusting the idiots on the Supreme Court (or worse, the idiot Presidents or Congresscritters)...why not simply READ the Constitution (and the supporting literature)?

If you do that, you'll see that there is no way in h@ll that the Founding Fathers ever intended the commerce clause to be used such that certain substances were BANNED...from interstate traffic, or ESPECIALLY from production within states (as cocaine, marijuana, LSD, etc. ALL are).

The Commerce Clause was intended to "make regular" commerce among the "several states"...in the same way a LAXATIVE makes one "regular." Congress was given that power in order to INCREASE commerce among the "several states"...NOT to decrease (or especially BAN) commerce.

One can see that the Commerce Clause was intended to INCREASE commerce among the "several states," because the Articles of Confederation did NOT have such a Congressional power...and the states RESTRICTED commerce more than the Founding Fathers desired.

There is no supporting material written by anyone, that is considered part of the Constitution.

If you totally ignore the supporting documentation, you end up not understanding what the Constitution even means. You come up with your COMPLETELY WRONG understanding of "regulate commerce among the several states," for example.

Or you end up with the completely non-sensical idea that Congress can do ANYTHING that promotes the "general welfare."

Read the Constitution. Read the supporting literature (including simply American history). You'll see that there's no way in h@ll that the Constitution gives Congress the legitimate power to regulate ANY drug. That's precisely why an amendment was necessary for alcohol Prohibition. (Given your WRONG interpretation, do you think that the 18th Amendment was not necessary? Do you think Congress simply could have passed the Volstead Act, without a supporting Constitutional amendment?)

[Reagan Man]

So the entire government is corrupt and the American people are a bunch of fools and idiots. We have idiots on the USSC, idiots in Congress and an idiot for President. But you support the writings contained in a fictional book by George Orwell called, "Animal Farm". A satire on Stalinism and the Russian revolution, as your basis for condemning the US government. What outrageous and outlandish rhetoric.

I've read the Constitution and a good deal of the Federalist Papers and the anti-Federalist Papers, as well as much of the private papers of Jefferson, Madison, Washington and others.

Nowhere in the Constitution, is anything mentioned about any of thsese historical papers. My point was and still is, the US Constitution, is the only lawful document, that guides the Congress in its legislative process for making law. There is no other historical papers that have any direct bearing, or association, on what the Constitution specifically states. The Constitution remains, a stand alone governing document, from which all subsequent written law is based on. If the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have their full understanding and interpretation of the Constitution, they should have spelled out precisely what they meant the document to mean.

I support much of the original intentions of the what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the Constitution, however, that doesn't make these so-called, associated documents, relevent to the current state of affairs.